Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Louise

Members
  • Content Count

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

492 profile views
  1. Thank you. This makes sense. And yes, I understand the motions themselves don''t need to be ratified -- that was a poor choice of word on my part. I think the idea is to approve (not ratify) the list of motions itself; however, I'm hearing you say to delete any extraneous and problematic material from the minutes and approve what's left, in which case that list of motion won't come into play.
  2. Thank you. We'll need to amend our bylaws accordingly.
  3. We've had some significant dysfunction in our organization recently, which included a secretary who didn't understand what minutes should (and shouldn't) contain. The last several sets of minutes that she prepared were not approved by the board due to inaccuracies and liability concerns. Our new secretary is not sure what to do with these minutes that aren't approved were never fixed (as the previous secretary took any recommended changes really personally). The new secretary wasn't on the board when those minutes were compiled and then rejected by the board. Is it appropriate to pull out
  4. Thank you! That reference makes sense of the idea that the term follows the position rather than the person. The elections of officers tend to be staggered (so that two remain on when two leave), but that doesn't always work in practice. Perhaps a bylaw amendment clarifying this would be in order.
  5. Whew. Well, if you can't find a reference either, I guess I will stop searching for it. There's nothing in the bylaws about when specific officers serve (odd-numbered or even-numbered years) or what positions they serve alongside of, just that they serve for a two-year term or until their successors are elected. Does that make any difference?
  6. Thank you. This is the information I'm trying to confirm. Is there a reference to this in Robert's Rule's somewhere?
  7. Alas, no, that isn't it ether. That is in essence our situation as well, as it turns out. But I can't find anything specific in Robert's Rules regarding the term following the position rather than the person. In our minds, it makes more sense for the person who has already been elected to a position and served a year (the new president) to only have one year left to serve, and the person who is newly elected (the new vice-president) to serve a full two-year term rather than just the final year of the vice-president's term. However, I remembered reading The Thread that Is Not to Be
  8. I thought that might be it, but no, it's not. It involved a president who resigned, causing the vice-president to become president, and a new vice-president to be appointed in place of the now-president. The old president who resigned was up for re-election, which (if I recall correctly) meant that the new president was going to be up for re-election now (even though he was only one year into his two-year term). The new vice-president, on the other hand, would be elected to a one-year term (for some reason). Does that ring any bells, or did I dream the whole thing?
  9. I recently came across a thread here that discussed the terms of appointed directors, but I'm unable to find it now. It centred around the term length being attached to the position (president, vp, etc.) rather than to the person who was appointed. Can someone point me to the section of RONR that discusses this?
  10. True enough. Although ensuring the bylaws don't hamstring the membership should help.
  11. Yes, new board members were elected at our last AGM and others (who weren't yet up for election) have since resigned. Agreed that not calling the special meeting was highly improper (as were a number of other actions). On the positive side, there was a large increase in the motivation levels of various members to run for the board and become involved.
  12. Yeah. We are hopefully (and slowly) piecing things back together again. It's such a mess. You can have all of the rules (and laws) in the world, but if you have a group that isn't interested in abiding by them...well, you end up with chaos.
  13. Thank you to both of you. I can see the issues with the bylaws allowing members to call special meetings directly as well. Since we recently had a situation where the board outright refused to call a special meeting when presented with a petition, we're just trying to figure out how to prevent that from happening again...
  14. Right now, special meetings of the general membership are allowed to be called by the president and/or the board, OR by way of a petition signed by X number of members. The bylaws do not say anything about the members being able to include the date/time/location of the meeting in the petition itself. As I understand it, our bylaws as written mean that a special meeting could not be called by way of motion at a member meeting. Am I mistaken?
  15. If special meetings called by the membership are permitted in the bylaws, who decides on the time/date/location of the special meeting? Can members do so (either in the motion at a meeting or in the wording of a petition for a special meeting)? Do the bylaws have to allow members to do so? And if so, is that wise? What if the board can't — or won't — make the arrangements to meet at that specific time or place?
×
×
  • Create New...